Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 6 (JHR)

Rashtriya Pariyojan Nirman v. State of Jharkhand

2011-01-04

D.K.SINHA

body2011
Order The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Case No. 96 of 1999 as well as quashment of the cognizance order dated 3.5.1999 by which the cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 against the petitioners. 2. The prosecution story in short was that on 10.4.1997 the business premises of the petitioners was visited by the complainant-Labour Enforcement Officer ,Central), Katrasgarh Camp at Bermo, an Inspector under Section 19 of the. Minimum Wages Act, and found carrying out the work of civil construction for Bokaro 'B' Plant. D.V.C. B.T.P.S.; P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Thermal, District-Bokaro under the Chief Engineer, D.V.C. B.T.P.S. which was scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and that the rates of the wages were fixed by the Government of India by the notification dated 21.12.1995. During course of inspection, the following offences were found:- "The following notices were not displayed at the main entrance of the establishments its work spot-violation of Rule 22. (I) Notice containing Abstract from the Act and Rules made thereunder in English & Hindi. The following Registers were not kept at the work spot. (I) Muster Roll in violation of Rule 26(5). (ii) Register of Wages in violation of Rule 26(1). 3. The Inspection Report-cum-Show-cause notice No.26(60)/97-B dated 17.4.1997 was served by with the petitioners were asked to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder and to report compliance directly to the Assistant Labour Commissiemer (Central), Dhanbad endorsing a copy to the complainant within the stipulated time. It is admitted that the petitioners had submitted their compliance vide letter No. 782715/123 on 29.4.1997 and accordingly the complainant asked the petitioners to produce the relevant records and register before him on 16.10.1997 so that the correctness of the compliance could be verified but the petitioners failed to comply the direction asking some more time to rectify the irregularities mentioned in the Inspection Report. Thereafter, the complainant again asked the petitioners to produce the relevant records and registers on 25.3.1999 but they did not, hence the complaint. In that manner, it was alleged that the petitioners contravened the provision of the Act and Rules aforesaid which attracted offence under Section 22(A)of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Thereafter, the complainant again asked the petitioners to produce the relevant records and registers on 25.3.1999 but they did not, hence the complaint. In that manner, it was alleged that the petitioners contravened the provision of the Act and Rules aforesaid which attracted offence under Section 22(A)of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Banerjee at the outset challenged the maintainability of the criminal prosecution of the petitioners on the ground that the cognizance of the offence, was itself barred by the statutory period of limitation. The occurrence as alleged took place on 10.4.1997 which would be evident from the Complaint Petition itself but the cognizance of the offence was taken on 3.5.1999 beyond the period of six months. Section 22B(2)(b) deals with the cognizance of the offence, which speaks:- . "No Court shall take cognizance of an• offence-- (b) Under Section 22A unless complaint thereof is made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed." This Act was amended by the State Amendments (Bihar) by inserting the following proviso in Section 22B(2) sub-so (2) for clause (b): "Provided that the Court, if it is -satisfied that the State Government or any officer authorized by it in this behalf was prevented by sufficient cause from sanctioning the making of the complaint within the period specified in subsection (2), shall condone the delay and allow the complaint to be made even after the expiry of the said period." 5. The learned counsel Mr. Banerjee further submitted that neither any sanction was obtained from a competent authority before launching prosecution against the petitioner nor the cognizance could be taken within the statutory period of six months as per Bihar Amendment, sought to be adopted by the Jharkhand State. Even no petition has been filed on behalf of the prosecution for condonation of delay as per proviso of sub-clause (2) of Section 22B of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948, therefore, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners cannot be sustained under law. 6. Heard learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State, who did not dispute the legal position. 7. Even no petition has been filed on behalf of the prosecution for condonation of delay as per proviso of sub-clause (2) of Section 22B of the Minimum Wages Act. 1948, therefore, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners cannot be sustained under law. 6. Heard learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State, who did not dispute the legal position. 7. In the facts and circumstances, I find that the cognizance of the offence under Section 22(A) of the Minimum Wages Act against the petitioners is barred by limitation as stated above and that there is no material on the record to show that the sanction of competent authority could be obtained before launching prosecution against the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners in T.R. No. 842 of 2005 pending before the Court of Shri M.K.Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sermo at Tenughat including the order impugned by which cognizance of the offence under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 was taken is set aside. 8. This petition is allowed.